But seriously. USC lost to a friggin' unranked 8-4 team. Penn State had the same record. But Michigan took care of business against Penn State (which I would put up against Oregon State any day of the week). Why should a team that lost to an unranked mediocre squad get a chance to play for the national championship, over a team that lost by 3 to the number one team in the country? Because they already played? Because they're in the same conference?

Wasn't this about putting the best two teams up against each other?

Why do losses in October count less than losses in November?

And I'm not surprised about the computer rankings - USC plays one more game than Michigan. Put another game on Michigan's schedule against a respectable opponent, and Michigan would top USC.

Of course, Michigan would have one more game if there were a conference championship game... the Big 10 just needs one more school to be able to be divided into two divisions of 6. The obvious choice for that school is Notre Dame -- but they're too damn greedy to give up their NBC contract.

Did you ever think when you were growing up that a trip to the Rose Bowl would be a disappointment?

If it meant not playing for the national championship, and we were eligible. When I was growing up people were already complaining about the system, and later, in 1997, it was torture that we had to share the title because we had to play in the Rose Bowl.

I haven't seem Florida play, so really I dont have an educated opinion on it.

I would say that I think Michigan is the only team that has a chance of beating Ohio State.....but I remember someone here saying something about how bad he hates Texas and always roots against Texas teams......so I am just going to stay neutral...at least until the Cowboys / Lions game. ;-)

Seriously, I do think Michigan should be #2. But I think that the SEC, having been snubbed recently, will lobby their way into the Title game.

But if Florida beats Ohio State, and Michigan really kicks USC's ass............I guess Florida would be deserving because they beat OSU and Michigan did not.

I personally would like to see a playoff system. OSU and Michigan both have a month and a half off between their last game and the BCS bowls. Thats plenty of time to have a 16 team playoffs.

To be honest, I don't have anything against the University of Texas per se, they have a darn fine history, a classy coach, and as far as I know (I'm not exactly jacked in) an honorable program. I simply generally root against Texas teams on principle ;-).

Do the Cowboys and Lions play this season? It won't be any contest. The Lions are awful, and everybody knows it. We live for college ball where I'm from.

I think Florida just might weasel its way in (we won our conference! we won our conference!). But you're right, if Florida beats OSU, then they beat the #1 team and they deserve the title. I think there's very little chance of that happening though.

A UM-USC game would be a classic too, though.

And once again, you're preaching to the choir on playoffs. I think it would make college football so much more exciting as well, since during the season most teams only play one, maybe 2 out of conference games against real powerhouse conferences (and the Big-10 almost never does it). I would have loved to see UM play a biggie from the SEC, the Big 12, the ACC or the Pac-10 during the season... But I understand that the conference schedule is brutal, and often coaches need the "lighter" opponents to prepare. But with playoffs, we would see a lot of inter-conference battles that we don't see during the season. I'm all for more UM-UT games, or OSU-Nebraska or FSU-Washington. Now THOSE games would be interesting -- even moreso in the playoffs.

I've heard the argument however (and find it somewhat convincing) that a playoff system increases the chance of injury to these players, some of whose only future is in pro football. Don't you think there's some truth to that?

Yeah but hell....most NCAA players will never play pro football. I guess that same argument would apply to college basketball as well. Although the risk of injury is not as high. Hell they've already risked injury for 12 games, half the chosen sixteen would only play 1 post season game, same as they do know. Only 8 teams would play beyond the current number of games.

Or you could cut out a couple of the bogus early non-conference games, and add the playoffs and MOST teams would play less risky games than they are now.....but the same people bitching about playing more games would probably be the same people bitching about playing less though.

But at least that is better argument than the lame academic reasons most college presidents use.

The networks hold the key. If they took their cash out of the bowl game system and offered it only to participants in a playoff system....the college presidents would come around. Might have to replace the NCAA with a more open-minded body first though.

You could still have all these bogus bowls for teams not in the chosen 16.

The SEC wins again. Being a typical Yankee, it just seems to me that there's an inherent slant towards the southern conferences in the voting. Two Big-10 teams at the top this year is a very rare exception.

And of course, the computers tied Florida and Michigan (even though Florida had an extra game!). It was the coaches who voted Florida above UM.

Tressel said he didn't feel right putting Ohio State in the middle of the decision of who the Buckeyes are supposed to play for the national title.

Michigan coach Lloyd Carr, a member of the coaches' poll, said there was no scenario in which he would choose not to vote. On Tressel's abstention, Carr said: "I thought it was real slick."

I can see both points of view -- if it were anybody but Ohio State. Now it just looks like Tressel was trying to screw Michigan and/or get the easier opponent in the national title game, hence:

All these factors were sure to set off renewed calls to scrap the BCS and go to a playoff. Count Florida coach Urban Meyer as supporter of that plan.

"We're beyond the fact of do we need a playoff," he said. "It's now, can we get one."

...

"It's an imperfect system," Meyer said Sunday. "If you want a true national championship, the only way to do it is on the field.

Carr agreed: "I hope one day we have a system where all the issues are decided on the field."

But Ohio State coach Jim Tressel, however, isn't so sure about a playoff system.

"With a 12-game season, it would be next to impossible to have a 16-team playoff," he said Sunday. "We'll continually improve the system. As you look at it over the past few years, it has gotten better and better."

Funny how Tressel seems to be the only guy in the world who still favors the BCS these days. Nice cop out on his part.

But I'm trying not to be a sore loser. The country believed that if USC had won its last game, then it deserved to play against OSU in the National Championship. This way, UM gets a shot (in the Rose Bowl no less -- Big 10 v Pac 10 once again!) to prove the country wrong.

Gustav's picks:

Michigan 28 - USC 21 (Both have awesome defenses and their offenses are great, but not as great as Ohio State's. I think UM's defense and offense are both better than USC's though)

Ohio State 40 - Florida 27 (No contest. I'm being nice to Florida, having them lose by less than 14)

Final Rankings:

1. Ohio State2. Michigan3. Florida4. USC (But I would have also loved to have seen a USC-Florida game. I'd take USC in that one too.)